Introduction
The realities presented by Bloom and Breines regarding Vietnam and the antiwar movement are as real as though it happened yesterday. The information presented hinges on the fact that the Vietnam war was engineered and founded in the American’s move to respond to nation’s that were undergoing social revolution. Although America did not imply this directly from the start, but rather hid under the pretext of assisting South Vietnam attain peace, be democratic and exercise defense against its foes.
However, there is a way in which the authors in both the primary and secondary sources reveal that America’s aim was to threaten world peace rather than enhance it. This paper compares both the primary and secondary sources and aims at examines the extent to which the primary source elaborates the thesis presented in the articles from the secondary source. One of the secondary sources used is “Vietnam War Mythology and the Rise of Public Cynicism” while the other one is “And that’s the Way It Was: The Vietnam War on the Network Nightly News.” The researcher paper is build through specific sections that include reasons for the American involvement in the Vietnam War, America’s main strategy in the Vietnam War and the antiwar war movement. The last section is the conclusion.
Reasons for the American Involvement in the Vietnam War
In explaining the main reasons behind the involvement of America in the Vietnam War, Appy and Bloom debunk a couple of myths that attempt to give false reasons for the same. First, it is known, though falsely, that America’s involvement in the Vietnam War was motivated by neither colonial ambitions nor political ends. America is said to have been different from France. However, the truth of the whole matter is that America supported France in conquering Vietnam.
Besides, America did not support Vietnam regarding its state of independence. This clearly depicts America’s political motive in its involvement in the Vietnam War. Although there is a claim regarding the role played by America in South Vietnamese nationhood, the truth is that America did not support the nationhood of Vietnam in any way, but rather was opposed to the unity between the Northern and Southern Vietnam after the two being divided by the communist – led Viet-Minh.
There are claims as suggested by Abby and Bloom that, America was fighting for the freedom and democracy of Vietnam. However, as Bloom and Breines assert, America was fighting for its own freedom and democracy rather than the democracy and freedom of Vietnam. This shows the selfish motive that America had towards the Vietnam War. This is also supported by the fact that most of the Vietnamese regimes that America supported were riddled with corruption, dictatorship and corruption. Bloom and Breines support this aspect of oppression by the way prisoners were tortured during the Vietnam War. They also assert the fact that US was very selfish and that it placed emphasis on material values instead of human values. America played a big role in the appointment of Diem who did not rule democratically.
Abby and Bloom are justified to say that South Vietnam was not independent in during the war. They were dependent on America on nearly every aspect. Bloom and Breines echo the same truth by saying that when the antiwar movement intensified, America could send more troops and resources to Vietnam to intensify the battle. Therefore, it’s true that that America was not merely supporting Southern Vietnam, but rather was providing both military and material support to them. Hence South Vietnam could not have managed on their own.
The Main Strategy in the Vietnam War
According to Chester, the main strategy that America employed in the Vietnam War is attrition. Chester suggests that this strategy was a failure. This is because first, the trends used in the operations of the troops were not unified. The absence of frontier lines and territorial objectives could contribute to this and result the soldiers into being frustrated and cynical. On the other head, attrition encouraged non-coordinated military operations which could only result to the need for more American soldiers and for more resources that they could use.
Second, the military strategy employed by the Vietnamese troops was better than the American. Their attacks were not regular and their enemies could therefore not calculate their next move. This made them to get the Americans without warning and thus defeat their attrition strategy. Americans could use attrition to search and destroy their foes whereas their enemies used a different and better tactic – they could locate and launch attacks in zones that were populated.
In attempting countersurgency attacks, the American troops lead to unwanted destruction especially towards the environment (vegetation) and to the civilians. Bloom and Breines affirm the same during their description of the effect that the war had on the country side especially through the use of killer sprays and herbicides by the American troops.